- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 19:10:42 +0000
- To: Alex Hall <alexhall@revelytix.com>
- Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Hi Alex, On 16 Nov 2012, at 16:28, Alex Hall wrote: >> [[ >> A *blank node identifier* is a Unicode string that is not an IRI. > > Minor nit-pick: An IRI is just a Unicode string that follows a certain format. A blank-node identifier string could be a valid IRI (modulo the syntax rules for bnode labels in the serialization language) in the same sense that a literal string could also be a valid IRI. We just choose to treat blank node labels and IRIs as distinct types of things. Fair point. I added the restriction as I hoped to remove a possible source of confusion, but perhaps there are better way of doing this. Condensed proposal: [[ A *blank node* is a *blank node identifier*, being a Unicode string, in a scope. Every RDF document forms its own, self-contained *scope* for blank nodes. The handling of scopes outside of RDF documents (for example, in RDF stores) is implementation-dependent. Other specifications MAY impose additional scoping rules. ]] The whole thing, with some additional changes, is here: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/User:Rcygania2/B-Scopes#3.4_Blank_Nodes I've done a few more changes in an attempt to address Andy's concerns. I try to make clearer there *may* be clashes between blank node identifiers because they don't *have* to be unique, and in that case blank nodes need to be relabelled. Best, Richard
Received on Friday, 16 November 2012 19:11:12 UTC